• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Is this logical?

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
Keep in mind every time you reformat an argument I am addressing the new argument which is of your own creation. After all you are not the person that made the argument in the OP thus you have no authority to represent them here so can not modify what they said.
I only explained what it means because people seemed confused about what it means, but I keep trying to refer people back to the OP because I know it changes the meaning when I explain it. My bad. :oops:
 

Shad

Veteran Member
That is true for formal logic, but a statement can be logical or illogical without a premise or a conclusion.

For something to be either there are premises and conclusions. Informal and formal is about format of logic. To ask if the point is logical in the form it is in is to acknowledge it is an informal format.

Logical describes something that comes from clear reasoning. A person who is logical is capable of reasoning or of using reason in an orderly cogent fashion.

Ergo conclusions derived from premises.

It was never intended to be an argument for nor against the existence of God.

That why I said it was a rebuttal to such a rebuttal regarding statement you modified.


I do not know why people are reading into the OP, adding their own thoughts that are unrelated to the OP.

I didn't. You asked if what you posted was logical. I pointed out the part that wasn't.

It says what it says. It needs to be read and understood for exactly what it says; nothing more nothing less.

Ergo thus must be evaluated as per your request. There is an assertion made which I quoted.

*I am talking about the OP quote

I will wait. :)

For what? I made my point. You modified the argument on your own after that point
 

Shad

Veteran Member
I only explained what it means because people seemed confused about what it means, but I keep trying to refer people back to the OP because I know it changes the meaning when I explain it. My bad. :oops:

You have no authority to do that as it is not your argument. You gave your interpretation which is your own creation. I quoted the part I objected to in the OP. You can agree or disagree. I agreed with the modification as a rebuttal.
 
Last edited:

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
For what? I made my point. You modified the argument on your own.
You made your point.
I do not want to argue with anyone and I won't do it anymore.
I meant I would wait for more people to answer because maybe someone will figure out the answer to the trick question.
 

Shad

Veteran Member
You made your point.
I do not want to argue with anyone and I won't do it anymore.
I meant I would wait for more people to answer because maybe someone will figure out the answer to the trick question.

I am answering that via the part I said was a rebuttal.
 

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
You have no authority to do that as it is not your argument. You gave your interpretation which is your own creation. I quoted the part I objected to in the OP. You can agree or disagree. I agreed with the modification as a rebuttal.
I disagree.
 

Shad

Veteran Member
I saw nothing I can agree with.
Sorry, I am not going back over all of that to explain why I disagree.
It would just turn into an argument, and that is not the purpose of this thread.

You disagreed with my interpretation or objection? As I said this is not your argument so you have no authority to interpret anything for me or for the person that made this argument. You are not addressing what I actually said. You are presenting your own versions which I addressed. You are getting your points cross here.
 

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
You disagreed with my interpretation or objection? As I said this is not your argument so you have no authority to interpret anything for me or for the person that made this argument. You are not addressing what I actually said. You are presenting your own versions which I addressed. You are getting your points cross here.
I do not care what I said or what you said before.
I cannot remember all that.
In order to sort it out you would have to start over.
The only thing I was interested in getting opinions about was the OP statement, and whether it was logical as stated.
You can forget I ever interpreted it, my mistake.
 

Heyo

Veteran Member
Is this logical? Why or why not?

God not communicating directly to everyone is an observation, something known.
That is badly worded. As it stands, it assumes gods existence.
"We don't observe everyone being contacted by higher beings." is more to the point.
However, it does not follow that, since it is observable that God does not communicate directly to everyone, that this means that if God existed God would not communicate directly to everyone.

This is illogical. After resolving the multiple negatives and putting it in a general form this basically says that
Observing X does not allow us to conclude that X would be true if Y. It is the denial of the scientific method.
 

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
That is badly worded. As it stands, it assumes gods existence.
"We don't observe everyone being contacted by higher beings." is more to the point.[/quoted]
It does assume God exists in order to continue on with the second statement.
This is illogical. After resolving the multiple negatives and putting it in a general form this basically says that
Observing X does not allow us to conclude that X would be true if Y. It is the denial of the scientific method.
Can you explain that in more understandable terms? What is the X and the Y?
 

night912

Well-Known Member
Is this logical? Why or why not?

God not communicating directly to everyone is an observation, something known. However, it does not follow that, since it is observable that God does not communicate directly to everyone, that this means that if God existed God would not communicate directly to everyone.

(Note: I did not write this.)

It's illogical because it's wrong and/or denying the truth.
 

danieldemol

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Is this logical? Why or why not?

God not communicating directly to everyone is an observation, something known. However, it does not follow that, since it is observable that God does not communicate directly to everyone, that this means that if God existed God would not communicate directly to everyone.

(Note: I did not write this.)
The OP does not say whether it is talking about God communicating with everyone before death or after death.

If it is talking about God communicating with everyone before death, then the observation that God does not communicate with everyone means God would not, because if God did it would have already happened since millions of people are already past the state of death.
 

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
The OP does not say whether it is talking about God communicating with everyone before death or after death.
It is talking about before death.
If it is talking about God communicating with everyone before death, then the observation that God does not communicate with everyone means God would not, because if God did it would have already happened
That's the answer! ~~~ Bingo.... You get the door prize, and here I was saying that an atheist would get it first. :oops:
Now, I can say that a Baha'i got the answer first. :D
This was worth staying up late for. I guess you and me think alike. :)
since millions of people are already past the state of death.
I was not sure exactly what you meant by that, how it ties in. o_O
 

danieldemol

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
It is talking about before death.

That's the answer! ~~~ Bingo.... You get the door prize, and here I was saying that an atheist would get it first. :oops:
Now, I can say that a Baha'i got the answer first. :D
Actually i’m not atheist or Baha’i

I was not sure exactly what you meant by that, how it ties in. o_O
I meant there are already people physically dead, so if all people were going to be spoken to by God it would have to have already happened for all the dead people, which it hasn’t
 
Top